RE: Use Cases & Requirements, Straw Man 1

[Darren Platt <dplatt@securant.com>]

I agree that Interaction Diagrams should be used.  Let's make notation an
agenda item on tommorow's call.

Darren



> -----Original Message-----
> From: Hal Lockhart [mailto:hal.lockhart@entegrity.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, January 30, 2001 6:01 PM
> To: 'Darren Platt'; UseCaseList
> Subject: RE: Use Cases & Requirements, Straw Man 1
>
>
> I am not very knowledgable about UML, but it seems to me that the current
> docment is misusing UML.
>
> My first reaction was that the diagrams would be much easier to understand
> if the arcs had arrows. So I went over to the OMG Web site and looked at:
>
> http://cgi.omg.org/cgi-bin/doc?omg/2000-11-01
>
> Lo and behold, the use case diagrams are not supposed to have
> arrows. Then I
> noticed that each arc (and balloon) represents one use case. This
> is not the
> case in our document, where the whole diagram is one use case and each arc
> is one step.
>
> Next I noticed a note that said "details of a use case can be
> shown with an
> Interaction Diagram." So I took a look at:
>
> http://cgi.omg.org/cgi-bin/doc?omg/2000-11-02
>
> And sure enough, Interaction Diagrams do have arrows and look a lot like
> protocol exchange diagrams.
>
> Perhaps some UML experts can correct me, but it looks to me like we should
> be using Interaction Diagrams to document our use cases.
>
> Hal